Peter Galbavy wrote:
>> > I dont know if this is out-of-scope of this discussion, but i would
> suggest
> > that a LIR, which applies for an AS-Num, should be required to fax a
> written
> > peering agreement signed by at least 2 upstream-providers.
>> Erm, I suspect that the regulatory organisation might get interested in this
> kind of policy. And why peering, most upstream services are not 'peering'
> but paid for transit.
I menat that in the traditional meaning of a BGP4-Session. But youre right,
its
a transit agreement.
> You say that my business should depend on the
> 'kindness' of my service provider filling in a form ?
Doesnt your business depend on your upstreams signing contracts about
transit with you and providing the agreed service? If an ISP sells
transit to you he will also be able to sign a simple form stating that you
will have a BGP4 Session with him. Therefore i dont c where the requirement
of a signed "bgp4 session with transit" agreement will have a bad impact
on business.
> In general, small
> providers are in a better position to buy BGP transit services when they
> already >have< and AS and IP space. If you go to a large upstream they will
> try to cross-sell you away from BGP transit in order to lock you in to
> themselves.
Sure, the bug upstream dont want you to become an independant AS.
best regards,
Arnd
--
NetHead Network Design and Security
Arnd Vehling av at nethead.De
Gummersbacherstr. 27 Phone: +49 221 8809210
50679 Köln Fax : +49 221 8809212

The RIPE NCC uses cookies. Some of these cookies may have been set already. More information about our cookies can be found in our privacypolicy. You can accept our cookies either by clicking here or by continuing to use the site.